• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

Page 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
thehog said:
Clearly he is 'influnced'. Prior to the elections I was ridiculed for suggesting this would happen. The SkySports Super Cycling Challenge Series (SSSCCS) coming to a SkySports TV channel near you.
Even when Mark L called me a troll and said I have an anti Cookson agenda I stuck to my opinion that McQuaid was better. Appears I might not have been that far off after all.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
I wouldn't get too triumphant just yet.......not enough detail as to what is going to happen.

Seeing as how this is being debated in the Clinic.....I wonder if there are any aspects of this related to anti-doping......one of the things that can be picked up from the limited details is that it is purporting to be partly about attracting sponsors.....is it a strategy to reduce the need for doping by reducing the number of days in the key GTs?...and thereby hope to secure more investment from wary sponsors?.....this wouldn't be the first time this has been suggested....and indeed riders have said it themselves

Mark L
 
Dec 11, 2013
711
0
0
thehog said:
Clearly he is 'influnced'. Prior to the elections I was ridiculed for suggesting this would happen. The SkySports Super Cycling Challenge Series (SSSCCS) coming to a SkySports TV channel near you.
What would prevent Sky Sports buying coverage of the existing events?
 
the sceptic said:
Even when Mark L called me a troll and said I have an anti Cookson agenda I stuck to my opinion that McQuaid was better. Appears I might not have been that far off after all.
As with Flo, let's just remember who started this particular ball rolling.
Clue: it wasn't Cookson.
Both equally culpable when it comes to chasing the cash.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
ebandit said:
I wouldn't get too triumphant just yet.......not enough detail as to what is going to happen.

Seeing as how this is being debated in the Clinic.....I wonder if there are any aspects of this related to anti-doping......one of the things that can be picked up from the limited details is that it is purporting to be partly about attracting sponsors.....is it a strategy to reduce the need for doping by reducing the number of days in the key GTs?...and thereby hope to secure more investment from wary sponsors?.....this wouldn't be the first time this has been suggested....and indeed riders have said it themselves

Mark L
The need for doping will always be there. People dope in every single sport in the world regardless. (except for track cycling)

Besides, sponsors don't care about the doping. They care about positive tests. So the key is to keep those to a minimum.
 
Jul 11, 2013
2,656
0
0
thehog said:
Better article here. It's been in play for a while.

http://inrng.com/2014/03/uci-world-tour-reforms/
But mine has excellent Cookson reasoning :D

I think it is important that everyone buys into what we come up with at the end of the day and has ownership of it, because some changes will be required,” Cookson told Cyclingnews recently, refusing to go into detail.
I don't want to comment on any one issue.
“I also don't want to give any specific.....................
I'm not going to be a hostage to fortune in that way,
Perhaps it's a little archaic in the way its democratic structure operates but if you're a member of a national federation, you have a voice. I urge people to join their national federations around the world rather than send angry tweets.
We have the final word
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
the sceptic said:
That is indeed classic Cookson. He is all about transparency!
:D
Let's look at the Tenerife issue.
Back in June, when Froome first raised a possible issue over a lack of testing, the UCI responded by saying they would investigate the matter. At the time a spokesperson for the governing body told the BBC that "We're looking into the matter with the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation."
Right. But several months on and no news from UCI. Nada, noppes, forcing Benson to go out and go find some answers.
Several months on and Cyclingnews approached the UCI, asking if they could confirm if tests had been carried out in Tenerife this year. They responded by saying that, "the efficiency of any anti-doping testing strategy relies on the unpredictable nature of the testing location and the element of surprise. Therefore, it is in no one's interest that the UCI and/or the CADF communicate on the number of tests carried out in specific regions."
 
TailWindHome said:
It would be interesting if someone could articulate why they think these changes are a bad idea.
Perhaps you could start? Rather than your usual loitering around threads critiquing posters and dropping in pictures of Froome/Cound for purposes to bait.
 
Dec 11, 2013
711
0
0
thehog said:
Perhaps you could start? Rather than your usual loitering around threads critiquing posters and dropping in pictures of Froome/Cound for purposes to bait.
Please stop attacking me.

Please
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
1
0
thehog said:
Perhaps you could start? Rather than your usual loitering around threads critiquing posters and dropping in pictures of Froome/Cound for purposes to bait.

Oooh the irony...

:D
Mark L
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
thehog said:
Perhaps you could start? Rather than your usual loitering around threads critiquing posters and dropping in pictures of Froome/Cound for purposes to bait.
Agree, it's quite tiresome with these posters who exist solely to nitpick and question other people and never contribute anything to any debate themselves.
 
the sceptic said:
Agree, it's quite tiresome with these posters who exist solely to nitpick and question other people and never contribute anything to any debate themselves.
I'd like to hear their position on the matter. Contribution and discussion is important. I look forward to the summary of Cookson latest comments.

:rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS